Wolf Prix and I once had a to-do about complying with, or
fighting, building codes.
Wolf said the Viennese pols gave Coop grief with picayune
requirements that were inhibitive to innovative design. And
that there was little ground for compromise.
My pleas about keeping users out of harm's way as a fundamental
obligation sounded too much like BureaucratSpeak to alter his
view much. (Still, he took my "code consultant" help for
Coop's entry for the Austrio-sliver here, ha!)
A few years back Gabrielle von Bernstorff told me that
Princeton students were "deconstructing" the NYC Building Code
as a "text". Wanted to know more but got none. Anybody got
more on this?
She's now practising in Deutschland among an entrenched cartel
that is more monolithic than that in the US. The construction
cartel is based on stringent laws and regulations which set
precise roles for all parties, and changes are blocked by
interlocking wastrels borne of long-coupling wrestles.
Such tales make me sanguine about alterations in how architects
and designers of all bent take their "duties" and
"responsibilities", as defined by law or thuggery.
But for now I welcome all the Coops who experiment with maximo
aesthetic design as the frame for enviro-betterment; my
reaction to too many years hearing excuses and seeing the
failures of the scientists, technicians and
socio-politio-economico-eco-designers. A lack of aesthetic
gyroscopy seems fatal. What "aesthetic" means is code-bereft,
thank Bountiful.
As a compass away from over-codified toxicity, read Michael
Sorkin's "Local Code", Princeton Architectural Press, 1994. He
sets "code" on a pervasive aesthetic path. It's dis-sed this
month in Architectural Record by Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk. Must
be pathfindingly apt then, Michael.
John
fighting, building codes.
Wolf said the Viennese pols gave Coop grief with picayune
requirements that were inhibitive to innovative design. And
that there was little ground for compromise.
My pleas about keeping users out of harm's way as a fundamental
obligation sounded too much like BureaucratSpeak to alter his
view much. (Still, he took my "code consultant" help for
Coop's entry for the Austrio-sliver here, ha!)
A few years back Gabrielle von Bernstorff told me that
Princeton students were "deconstructing" the NYC Building Code
as a "text". Wanted to know more but got none. Anybody got
She's now practising in Deutschland among an entrenched cartel
that is more monolithic than that in the US. The construction
cartel is based on stringent laws and regulations which set
precise roles for all parties, and changes are blocked by
interlocking wastrels borne of long-coupling wrestles.
Such tales make me sanguine about alterations in how architects
and designers of all bent take their "duties" and
"responsibilities", as defined by law or thuggery.
But for now I welcome all the Coops who experiment with maximo
aesthetic design as the frame for enviro-betterment; my
reaction to too many years hearing excuses and seeing the
failures of the scientists, technicians and
socio-politio-economico-eco-designers. A lack of aesthetic
gyroscopy seems fatal. What "aesthetic" means is code-bereft,
thank Bountiful.
As a compass away from over-codified toxicity, read Michael
Sorkin's "Local Code", Princeton Architectural Press, 1994. He
sets "code" on a pervasive aesthetic path. It's dis-sed this
month in Architectural Record by Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk. Must
be pathfindingly apt then, Michael.
John